DAY et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
Filing
321
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 315 Motion to Quash; granting 319 Motion to Enforce. See order for details. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on March 16, 2020. (AG) Modified on 3/17/2020, to make a correction. (zgdf).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IVY BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 10-2250 (ESH)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the District of Columbia Housing Authority’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum and [for an] Award of Fees and Costs, ECF No. 315,
and plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 319. For the reasons stated herein, the
motion to quash is denied and the cross-motion to enforce is granted.
The subpoena at issue seeks deposition testimony from a Rule 30(b)(6) designee from
the District of Columbia Housing Authority (“DCHA”) and related documents concerning
DCHA’s public housing program and its Housing Choice Voucher Program. DCHA seeks to
quash the subpoena on both procedural and substantive grounds and seeks sanctions against
plaintiffs’ counsel.
I.
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS
DCHA argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it was not properly served on
opposing counsel, it was served without a witness fee, and it was improperly addressed to the
“Custodian of Records,” although it sought to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. (DCHA Mot. at
3-4.) For the reasons set forth by plaintiffs in their cross-motion to enforce (Pls.’ Cross-Motion
at 8-9), the Court finds DCHA’s procedural objections to be without merit.
II.
SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS
DCHA also argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it is unduly
burdensome, seeks documents that are irrelevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence,
and may require the disclosure of confidential information. (DCHA Mot. at 4-5.) The Court
disagrees. First, DCHA offers nothing but conclusory statements to support its claim of undue
burden. Plaintiffs have also delineated the scope of information they are seeking with respect to
DCHA’s wheelchair-accessible public housing inventory and “Special Purpose” housing
vouchers (see Pls.’ Cross-Mot. at 3-4 (citing Pls.’ Ex. 6)). Second, the information plaintiffs
seek is relevant. DCHA witnesses testified in the first trial in this case, and the District of
Columbia has indicated that its potential witnesses in the second trial include “[r]epresentatives
from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), potentially including but not limited
to Carolyn Punter (Director of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, DCHA),” who will
testify “concerning the issues raised at trial in November of 2016 by DCHA witnesses.”
(District of Columbia’s Supp. Interrogatory Resp., Feb. 11, 2020 (Pls.’ Ex. 9).) In addition, as
this Court and the D.C. Circuit have noted, the availability of wheelchair-accessible housing,
whether in the public housing program or the HCVP program, is critical to the issues raised by
this litigation. Finally, the subpoena does not seek any confidential information. (See Pls.’
Cross-Mot. at 6 (citing Pls.’ Ex. 2).)
III.
SANCTIONS
As DCHA’s objections to plaintiffs’ subpoena are meritless, there is no basis for
imposing sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that DCHA’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum and
[for an] Award of Fees and Costs, ECF No. 315, is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 319, is GRANTED; it is
further
ORDERED that, on or before March 23, 2020, DCHA shall designate a Rule 30(b)(6)
deponent(s) on Matters for Examination Nos. 1-8 identified in the subpoena served by Plaintiffs
on DCHA on February 14, 2020 (Pl. Ex. 6 to plaintiffs’ cross-motion to enforce) (“February 14
Subpoena”); it is further
ORDERED that, on or before March 23, 2020, DCHA shall produce documents in
response to Documents to Be Produced Nos. 1 and 2 as they relate to Matters for Examination
Nos. 1-2, 5-6, and 8, as set forth in the February 14 Subpoena; and it is further
ORDERED that, on a mutually convenient date prior to the close of discovery on April
8, 2020, DCHA’s designee(s) will testify at a deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), as noticed
by plaintiffs in the February 14 Subpoena.
_______________________
ELLEN S. HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: March 16, 2020
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?